Loading...
2008.05.28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2008 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, Partner 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Notice of Appeal No. 2-2008 Capital Region Properties, LLC d/b/a Dunham’s 2. Bay Resort Tax Map No. 252.00-1-75.1 Use Variance No. 23-2008 Alan Goldstein d/b/a Dunham’s Bay Resort 2. Tax Map No. 252.00-1-75.1 Area Variance No. 24-2008 Jolley Associates/MOBIL 2. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29 Area Variance No. 25-2008 Angio Dynamics, Inc. 7. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10; 14.1; 14.2; 15 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS JOAN JENKIN GEORGE DRELLOS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll call the May 28 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that’s perhaps new here. As we handle each application, I’ll call the application by name and number. The Secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes, as well as any Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision, and it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if, after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather, we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity react and respond to the public comment, as well as Board members will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. We do have some changes this evening, for those of you that are here. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND CULLUM OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATER DEVICES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. APPLICATION WAS TABLED TO THIS DATE TO ALLOW APPLICANT TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. TO DATE, NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 (NO COUNTY IMPACT) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 147- 9B.2(d) MR. UNDERWOOD- First, I think, Roy, do you want to read that one in from Debaron Associates, the letter. MR. URRICO-Yes. This is an e-mail directed to Craig Brown from Tom Hutchins dated th May 27. “On behalf of Debaron Associates, we respectfully request that the Area Variance hearing scheduled for May 28 be tabled to a later date, perhaps the July meeting. We are completing the WW variance submission to the Board of Health as 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) suggested by the ZBA. With this issue outstanding, we really have no further meaningful information for the ZBA to review. Regards, Tom Hutchins” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to recommend tabling of this Area Variance Number 11-2008, and that’s Debaron Associates Debra Schiebel, Partner. I’m going to recommend that they be put on the agenda for one of the meetings in July. We’ll expect, probably, to hear from them some time in June. If not, then we’ll be moving them on to some later date after that. thrd MR. BROWN-The 16 and the 23 are the choices. I don’t know if you want to pick a date or not. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I guess we’ll go 16, then, for them. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Dark Bay Lane, off Route 9L. Tabled until the July 16, 2008 meeting. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2008 SEQRA TYPE: N/A CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, LLC d/b/a DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, LLC d/b/a DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L APPELLANT IS APPEALING A NOVEMBER 29, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. CROSS REF.: AV 23-2008 (PENDING OUTCOME OF APPEAL) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 13.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-2-75.1 SECTION: 179-16-050 USE VARIANCE NO. 23-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ALAN GOLDSTEIN d/b/a DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT AGENT(S): LITTLE & O’CONNOR/JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERING OWNER(S): CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, LLC d/b/a DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF GROUND LEVEL PATIO AND DECK ONTO EXISTING RESTAURANT FOR ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR DINING. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE REQUIRES A USE VARIANCE. CROSS REF.: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 14, 2008 ADIRONDACK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 13.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.1 SECTION: 179-13-10 MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Under New Business, the next two applications that we were expecting to hear this evening were Notice of Appeal No. 2-2008, as well as Use Variance No. 23-2008, and I will read in a letter that we received by fax this afternoon. “Gentlemen: Please consider this letter a request for permission to withdraw the above referenced Appeal and Use Variance made on behalf of Capital Region Properties, LLC. If there is any question on this request, please advise. Yours Very Truly, LITTLE & O’CONNOR ATTORNEYS, P.C. By: Michael J. O’Connor” So that’s a pull, then, of both Appeal No. 2-2008 and Use Variance No. 23-2008. So, whether we see that one again, I guess hang on to that stuff anyway in case they come back before the end of the summer, but who knows. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II JOLLEY ASSOCIATES/MOBIL AGENT(S): SEAN CRUMB OWNER(S): JOLLEY ASSOCIATES ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 777 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 18-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 14, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION: 179-4-060 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) TOM NACE & SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2008, Jolley Associates/MOBIL, Meeting Date: May 28, “Project Location: 777 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the removal of an existing 944 sq. ft. convenience store and replace with a 2288 sq. ft. convenience store. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.6 feet of relief on Route 9 from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a larger and more up to date convenience store. 2. Feasible alternatives: Upgrade current structure or construct in a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The relief is 8.8% or 6.6 feet of the 75 foot setback requirements. The proposed new building to be placed over the existing building footprint. The proposed building would be 70.24% larger than existing building. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Will adverse traffic issues affect the community as a result of this proposed action? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site plan review pending Staff comments: Proposal is anticipated to have a moderate effect on the surrounding area. Traffic and storm water issues should be addressed as part of this proposal. The building proximity in relation to the existing pump island may require a recommendation from the Planning Board prior to Area Variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead, if you wish. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14, 2008 Project Name: Jolley Associates/MOBIL Owner(s): Jolley Associates ID Number: QBY-08-AV-24 County Project#: May08-28 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove existing convenience store and construct a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store. Relief requested from front setback requirements and travel corridor overlay district setbacks requirements. Site Location: 777 Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.6-1-29 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to rebuild an existing gasoline convenience store. The existing building is to be removed and 2,288 sq. ft. building is to be constructed that would not meet the require setbacks. The existing canopy that is to remain currently does not meet the setback requirements; the canopy is 48 ft. from Route 9, 15 ft. from 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) the corner of Route 9 and Rt. 254 where a 75 ft. setback is required and 10.6 ft. from the southeast side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The plans shows the existing and proposed site layout. The applicant has indicated there is no new impervious surface or exterior site changes are proposed. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 5/19/08. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering. With me is Sean Crumb from Jolley Associates, and essentially what we’re trying to do is to upgrade an existing site, an existing facility, with a more modern convenience store. We’re trying to leave the existing gas pump and dispensing site pretty much intact the way it is. It was upgraded not too many years ago, but we’ve put the building in a position, in a location where it makes most sense to work with the existing gas islands, and that’s the reason, really, for our variance request is to be able to construct a more modern facility. We feel we’ve picked the best, least intrusive place on the site to put it, and it happens to be that because of the highway takings and the existing facility having been there for quite a while, we’re not in conformance with the existing zoning standards. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would ask a couple of questions, and just make a couple of comments, in regards, I know that they’ve recently reconfigured all the travel lanes over there and turn lanes and everything else. So I don’t anticipate any time in the future that they would be adding more. It seems to me they’re probably about as maxed out as they can make it, given the ability to handle the traffic that’s generated there. On the building, my only question for you would be, are you under any Fire Marshal things, as far as being under the, are you going to be under the canopy with the front of the building or pretty close to it? MR. NACE-Yes, it would be under the canopy. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. CRUMB-Similar to what it is now. It’s currently under the canopy. MR. UNDERWOOD-I didn’t know if you were going to be under any stipulations from the Fire Marshal or anything like that, as far as that goes, because it’s a building. MR. CRUMB-I did check with the Fire Marshal, and as I recall, his comment with the placement of the northerly most pump was, and help me with this if you would, Tom, the materials, specific materials were required with the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because that one’s pretty close compared to the other ones. Yes. MR. CRUMB-Yes, and we have other sites, not specifically in this area, but other sites that have similar set ups with the single sided dispenser, in very close proximity to the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody on the Board have any questions they want to ask? MR. URRICO-This expansion will make it closer to those islands, will it not? MR. CRUMB-It will make it closer to the northernmost island. I looked at shifting the building around several times. However, the problem that that created was the travel lanes became too narrow. So I chose to leave the southern portion of the building basically as it is, and stretch it out to the north and utilize a single sided dispenser to accommodate the larger building, and do away with the one travel lane. MR. URRICO-Well, the problem I see is that in that particular building location, that many of your customers pull up right in front of the door or alongside the building. So having a tight space between the pump and the building will make it even more difficult for traffic to get around there. MR. CRUMB-Well, that was the reasoning for removing one travel lane all together and we did not reduce the size of the southerly travel lane. If my measurements are correct I believe we’re still at about 13 feet, which is just about what’s currently there now. There is adequate parking obviously in the front and also to the north, which we would certainly stripe and do our best to get folks to use those spaces. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-So cars are only going to pull up at that pump on the outside of it? MR. CRUMB-Yes. That’s are hope, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Is that the diesel pump? MR. CRUMB-No, that’s not. The diesel pump would be on the southerly most island, a single, separate dispenser, so that you could utilize it from either the far south end or on the other side, if you will. MRS. JENKIN-Is it possible to make the building more square so that it isn’t a rectangle, to pull it back to the existing, where the existing building is now? MR. CRUMB-It’s pretty close to square, and really we did put an awful lot of thought into how to make the best use of all of that and try to make everything work, if you will. MRS. JENKIN-It’s a difference of four feet, but four feet might make a big difference when you’re talking about. MR. CRUMB-Well, four feet within the store is a great amount of space. MRS. JENKIN-No, no, I mean. MR. CRUMB-Pushing it back further? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, push it either back further or push the wall out farther, so that you were back where the existing building, the front of the existing building is now. MR. CRUMB-I understand what you’re saying. MRS. JENKIN-Either go to the, make it square or. MR. CRUMB-I’m not sure that, without narrowing or, I’m sorry, without lengthening the building in some fashion, we could accomplish that, because we’re tight in the rear on our setback as well. MRS. JENKIN-The 24, there’s no regulation, then, that you have to be a certain distance from the pumps? MR. CRUMB-There was not, and I did personally check with the Fire Marshal and we will certainly do that again, but at the point of the last conversation there was no issue aside from the building materials to be used. MR. UNDERWOOD-If the Planning Board doesn’t like that idea, are you just going to like eliminate that pump, then, in essence? MR. CRUMB-Well, it’s certainly possible. I’d rather not. If that circumstance arises, I’ll certainly have to think about the. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I know extending your canopy out further to the north isn’t probably going to work either. MR. CRUMB-No, and really the reasoning for having the building end where it is is the canopy post is there. Regardless whether there was a dispenser there or not, we would need to stay away from that canopy post. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess the only other alternative would be to cut the north side of the building back and, you know, keep it open, if that’s what they’d prefer, but I mean you always have that option going to the Planning Board anyway, once you get past us. MR. GARRAND-Quick question. Had the State not acquired the land out front, you wouldn’t even need a variance, would you? MR. CRUMB-No, we would not. MR. GARRAND-That’s what I thought. Thank you. MR. DRELLOS-When were the tanks and pumps put in, do you know? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) MR. CRUMB-I couldn’t give you an exact date, but we do have plans to remove all of the tanks, lines and pumps and we’ve re-worked the whole site. MR. DRELLOS-So at some point you probably will change the layout of the pumps anyway. MR. CRUMB-It will all be done concurrently. However, we have no plans to change the canopy, and that’s a major issue with the Site Plan. We actually had come in, about a year and a half, two years ago, and requested of the Town to purchase the property behind that, so that we could look to reconfigure the whole site, because we didn’t have adequate setback. It wasn’t this Board, but it was another Board that didn’t like my idea much, and so this is what we’ve come up with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have questions? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? I don’t think we had anything, did we? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add at this point? I guess we’ll just see what the Board thinks. I guess I’ll poll the Board, then, and I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we’ve had similar applications for gas stations in and around Town, and the 75 feet is extensive. I think six feet into that 75 foot corridor is not going to have a major impact, and I see the benefit to the applicant would be to move it to a different location, but that little different location, I mean, the benefit to the applicant is obvious. The feasible alternatives would be to put it in a more compliant location, but I don’t know if there are any on this site. So the relief I don’t see as being substantial. I don’t see it having an effect on the neighborhood, and although the difficulty is self- created, I think they need it to stay in business in this area. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I don’t see any problems. I do have some concern about traffic, but I think that will be taken up by the building, the traffic, the Planning Board I’m sure will take that up. So I have no problem. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor of this application. I think that Rick said it best when he said if the State hadn’t purchased that land, that you wouldn’t be here for a variance to begin with. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I have a concern about the building being too close to the pumps, but I don’t see much alternative, and you do have very limited space there, and I think that Mr. Urrico gave all the positives, and I would agree with him. So I would be for the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead, George. MR. DRELLOS-Jim, I would be in favor of this variance. I think the State taking of the land, I don’t know if they took it, I’m sure they paid you something. MR. CRUMB-They may have supported MOBIL in the past. MR. DRELLOS-But, well, whatever the taking of your land I think created this problem for you. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I think he hit it right on the head, so I’d be in favor of this also. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement with everybody else on it. I think the 6.6 feet is minor, what you’re asking for, and I think as far as the pump goes there, you know, the next time you guys reconfigure and put all the new tanks in, if you rip everything, it’s, you know, to make you take the whole canopy down and everything is going to be a major ordeal, and there’s not much else you could do on the site. I think it’s probably in a reasonable location where it’s located at the present time. So we’ll just live with it. We’ve all stopped there and gotten gas at some point I’m sure, and we’ve survived. So as far as the Planning Board goes, I mean, it’s always a hassle with people trying to turn out the wrong way trying to get back to the Northway and stuff like that, and I don’t know if there’s some long term solution with jockeying traffic all the way down to the stop light, down past Toys R’ Us or something, but, you know, that’s something for the Town to think of in a long term view, and right now it doesn’t seem feasible to do it, so I guess we’ll just live with what you have there. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you want to close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2008 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES/MOBIL, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 777 Glen Street. The applicant proposes the removal of an existing 944 square convenience store and replace with a 2288 square foot convenience store. The applicant is seeking 6.6 feet of relief on the Route 9 corridor from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement. On the balancing test, can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible? Given the nature and the configuration of this lot, this is the most practical solution. Are there going to be undesirable changes to the neighborhood or character of the properties? No, we are not changing the use or anything. We’re just increasing the size of the convenience store. The nature of the renovations won’t create any undesirable change whatsoever. The request would be deemed as minor relative to the Code. Will this have any adverse physical or environmental effects? No adverse environmental effects can be anticipated from the expansion of the convenience store, and in this case, where the State acquired the land causing the setback situation, I would deem this as not self-created. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 24-2008. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Good luck with it. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): IDA OF WARREN & WASHINGTON CO. & ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. ZONING: LI LOCATION: 603 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 113,000 SQ. FT. 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REF.: SPR 33-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 14, 2008 LOT SIZE: 16.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8- 1-10; 14.1; 14.2; 15 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2008, Angio Dynamics, Inc., Meeting Date: May 28, 2008 “Project Location: 603 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing office buildings and construction of a 3 story, 113,000 square foot office building with associated site work. Relief Required: The applicant requests 6.75 feet of total relief from the 50-foot maximum height requirement per 179-4-030 for LI zoning. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an office building greater than 50 feet in height. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to continued use of existing facility, expansion of existing facility, or the building of a new facility at a different location 2. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request of 13.5% or 6.75 feet may be interpreted as minimal 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 22-2007 Office building construction SP 37-2006 Warehouse expansion Staff comments: The proposed structure has a total height of 56.75 feet per elevation drawings on page A3 of site plan. It should be noted that the 6.75 feet of the variance request is for the roof screen. Consideration may be given to seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board prior to acting on this variance request. Has any FAA correspondence been received by the applicant? SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14, 2008 Project Name: Angio Dynamics, Inc. Owner(s): IDA of Warren/Washington Co. & Angio Dynamics, Inc. ID Number: QBY-08-AV-25 County Project#: May08-23 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing office buildings and construction of new 113,000 sq. ft. 3-story building and associated site work. Relief requested from the maximum height restrictions. Site Location: 603 Queensbury Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 297.8-1-10 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the demolition of existing office building and construction of a new 119,000 footprint sq. ft. 3-story office building and associated site work. The relief requested is for the construction of an architectural screening on the roof where the height of the building would be 59 ft. 3 in where a 50 ft maximum height is allowed. The applicant has indicated the screening would be for a maintenance stairwell and for the HVAC machinery located on the roof. the information submitted shows the site layout and an elevation drawing. This project is associated with board has previously seen projects for Angio as part their reconfiguration and expansion of facilities. Staff recommends approval based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239L 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) applied to the proposed project. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Warren County Planning Board recommends approval.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 5/19/08. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Randy Bodkin, to my left, from Angio, and Tom Nace the project engineer. I think that this application is pretty straightforward. In the application it was characterized as the real goal here is visual, it’s for the parapet so that, in Queensbury we could have the mechanicals on the roof and it wouldn’t count towards the height, and it wouldn’t require a variance. So it would still be the same height, but it wouldn’t count, and the goal is two fold here. As a corporate office, image is very important. So they want to have clean lines and have it as an attractive building. That’s one issue, but also in terms of just the location and maximizing utility of this site, we’re not seeking green space variances, impervious variances. So we’re not maxing out the site beyond what’s allowed in Queensbury. It’s just a matter of covering up the roof mechanicals, which really is only a benefit to the neighbors. There really aren’t many receptors, people drive by it, but there really aren’t many people who live right in the vicinity here in the industrial park near the airport, and there really aren’t many businesses across the street, but to the extent that they could be looking at the mechanicals, I’m sure that everyone in the area would rather be looking at this attractive parapet wall. In terms of the project, this is a real long term commitment to the community for both engineering jobs and good paying manufacturing jobs. So the fact that they’ve decided to expand in this location, they have a lot of other alternatives. It’s really a good thing for the community. We have a photo rendering that gives a better representation of what was in the application because it shows a bird’s eye view to show exactly what the parapet wall will look like if you were really. I’m not sure if you have that one. So, yes, that’s really the one that best shows what it is we’re asking for. One question that came up in Staff Notes, we didn’t submit it because we didn’t anticipate it as a Town issue. It’s the FAA issue. Randy, in April, corresponded with FAA and we have a letter that we’ll submit now that just says that this, and they did it, they looked at the study and said that there’s no interference at all, and that’s what, very straightforward documentation that there’s no FAA issue, in terms of the height variance. That’s certainly a good question to ask, and we didn’t anticipate that we should have submitted it with the application, but there it is. RANDY BODKIN MR. BODKIN-That’s done every time I do an expansion. This is the first time it’s ever come up in conversation. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we all assumed you were way off the flight line there, that anybody that hit your building with a plane would be liable. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but Craig also sent me a letter from the Airport. They are raising the same question, as a public comment. So it’s good to have it documented in the record that Randy’s looked into it and we’re all set there. So we look at this as a minor variance because it’s really a visual improvement and it’s no higher, but when we were sitting down, Tom pointed out that when he calculated the height, in the Staff Notes it says 6.75 feet, but Tom counted it from the lowest point, but the loading dock, which is a cut, which is underneath the building, so that from that one perspective, which is not the front, but from that one loading dock perspective, it would actually be 59 feet 3 inches, and so that’s how the variance should be characterized, and then finally the Staff Notes talked about whether this should be referred to the Planning Board, and we would hope that you won’t see this as a major variance or that you need Planning Board input, only because of the remote location of the building and really the lack of neighbors, and it’s just important, we need to get to the Planning Board for Site Plan, but we hope that, procedurally, we won’t be, spend a few months to have to go there and come back to this Board. We look at this as really a pure Zoning Board issue in terms of just the height variance. Tom, is there anything that you’d like to add at this point? MR. NACE-No. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question for you, because, you know, you don’t really include that around onto the west side where you get most of your prevailing winds from and wind sheer and all that stuff there. So I was wondering why you hadn’t closed in the whole top of the roof. You could have used it for like, staff could have gone up there to have lunch or do a green garden up there or something like that. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) MR. BODKIN-The main reason was cost. I mean, it costs X dollars per linear foot of parapet wall and there’s no one viewing it from that direction. So, I mean, that was the main reason, there’s no visibility. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. Didn’t we grant a variance for the parking lot recently? I don’t notice it as part of the parcel history. MR. BROWN-Yes. I believe there was a parking variance that was granted. MR. NACE-That would have been for the previous Building Six. There was a previous submittal or previous application that was approved for Building Six in a different location. This is a newer version of that. MR. URRICO-Okay. Is there enough parking at this location? MR. BODKIN-Yes. Since our last visit, I purchased an additional three acres to our south, increasing our total from the 13.95 to 16, which still leaves us room for future expansion, approximately 22,000 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any questions they want to ask or any comments you want to make? MRS. JENKIN-I have several comments because there’s several factors that are really important here. I think that Mr. Lapper absolutely said it. This is an industrial park, and this is going to be a real boon to the whole community to have this expansion here and have your headquarters here. It’s a really positive, positive thing for our community. I think the building will be a, it’s going to be a real asset to the whole neighborhood. You’ve put, it’s impossible, with the configuration that you have, the front of the building is mainly the front, which the Comprehensive Plan has said they don’t like a lot of parking places in front of the building, and you’ve managed to keep that towards the side and the back, which is actually on the roads, but a lot of the parking is at the back, and this is nothing to do with the height, but going up makes sense, rather than spreading out over many, many more acres, and I just think it’s a great project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to comment at all? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any letters, any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Well, the only thing is we do have a letter from the FAA. Do you want me to read the whole thing or just read the determination? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just give us the go ahead if it’s the go ahead. MR. URRICO-There’s a determination of no hazard to air navigation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-That’s basically the gist of it. MR. BROWN-And there should be, prior to that, a letter from the Airport Administrator that asks those questions that that letter answers, but I don’t know if it’s with that. MR. BODKIN-I had conversations with Don DeGraw the other day, in reference to this, and, I mean, he sees it as an opportunity to make it known to the Board that, you know, anybody constructing adjacent to the Airport needs to comply with the FAA regulations. I mean, we’ve done so since the beginning, but there’s probably been some other cases that maybe people haven’t been aware of that. So that was part of the message he was trying to get across here as well. MR. URRICO-Jim, just to make it square, there’s a letter in here addressed to you, “In reference to the Area Variance permit that Angio Dynamics, Inc. has applied for. The Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport would like to submit the following. Due to the location of the proposed construction in relationship to the existing airport and the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enforces regulations for structures, such as 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) buildings, which could potentially affect air navigation are found in 14 CFR, Part 77, Objects affecting Navigable Airspace. The airport requests that the owners submit a FAA Form 7460 to the FAA, and if the site is found suitable for the proposed land use, then the owners will comply with any and all restrictions or other requirements that the FAA deems appropriate. In addition the airport would like to review and be kept current to the status of this project and others like it in the future to ensure that the airports safety and future growth potential are not compromised. Sincerely, Donald P. DeGraw Airport Manager” And then, to that, there is a response from the FAA and the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, and it’s a two page letter that will be in the file if anybody would like to look at it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Great. All right. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members want to comment on this one? Does anybody want to comment on this at all, or are you guys just ready to vote on it, or I’ll summarize and then we can vote? MR. BROWN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, just for consistency, the agenda is correct. It lists the SEQRA Type as Unlisted. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So we’ve got to go through the Short Form. MR. BROWN-Yes, you should go through that first. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just some closing comments that I’ll make on this. I think we were all anticipating this was going to come in after the re-do of all the warehousing and all that stuff that you did previously with this in the past. As far as I’m concerned, and I think most of us on the Board, I think that the architectural renderings show pretty well why that screening works and hiding all the mechanicals up on the roof there, and it’s not going to be any great, you know, to me it’s like having a little fence up on top of there. It’s not that big of a deal, with the extra height that you needed, and as Tom said, if you’re measuring from that loading dock that slopes down, that’s what gives you the extra. So do you want it for the 9.75 feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but only if you can say it’s only for the loading dock, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but that’s the only, in general I think we’re looking at the 6.75 every else on site except. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BODKIN-Per your Code, it’s from the lowest point. So it should be that 59.3. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So we’ll make sure that we include that in there, too. All right. Let me get the Short Form. All right. Everybody open up your forms. You guys are going to answer the questions on this one, as we go through. As far as project information. It’s Angio Dynamics. Their world headquarters building located at 603 Queensbury Avenue in the Town of Queensbury Warren County New York. The applicants are Angio Dynamics at that same address, and as far as the description of the action, it’s construction of a 113,000 square foot headquarters office building on an existing manufacturing facility site. So we’re going to be doing a major tear down of all the old buildings that are there and putting up this new, fancy three story plus structure here with the extra screening on the top of the building. As far as the site description goes, the present land use is industrial. It’s a Light Industrial zone. The approximate acreage is noted on their form that they submitted to us. I don’t think we need to read in all those little sub categories, do we, Craig, as far as meadow land, forested? I think those are on the record because the form will become part of the record. As far as the soil types on site, it’s moderately well drained on 85% of the site. Fifteen percent of the site is poorly drained. Those, again, are going to be Planning Board issues that we’re not dealing with. Bedrock outcroppings on site, no. Depth to bedrock is eight feet. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes, 80% of the site is 0 to 10% slopes, 10 to 15% is 20% slopes, and that pretty much substantiates that. Is the project substantially contiguous to or contain a building site or district listed on the State or National registers of historic places? No. Is the project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the natural landmarks register? No. What is the depth of the water table? It’s 0 to 5 feet. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, are you going through the Long Form there? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that what you want me to do? MR. BROWN-Well, you can use the Short Form if you want to? MR. LAPPER-We submitted a Long Form, but it wasn’t required. MR. BROWN-If you want to continue, that’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-I might as well just continue. It’s not going to be that much more. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, if you’re going to do the Long Form, then the part that you’re reading are their responses, and if you do it, you know, there’s a Part II that the Board uses to make their determination. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think if there’s any that we disagree with, we should disagree with them, then, or? MR. BROWN-Well, if you’re going to use the Long Form, you’re supposed to do the Part II. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. We’ll just go back and do the Short Form. MR. BROWN-The Short Form would be the easier. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what we usually do. I’m sorry. MR. BROWN-That’s okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s okay, because the record reflects that we submitted the Long Form, and the Board reviewed it, so we’ve answered the questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. I think we can use my introduction that we started on the Long Form as to what the project is. Do you want me to start that all over? MR. BROWN-I think you’re fine. You just need to do the questions on the second page. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that’ll swing. We’ll just do the questions. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other restrictions? I would say yes. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What is the present land use in the vicinity? It’s Light Industrial. So we would say commercial at that point, right? MR. BROWN-Yes, again, that’s the first page. Those are the responses that they’re supposed to complete. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BROWN-The questions that the Board considers is the second page. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll skip to that, then. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” I would say yes, probably. The Planning Board’s going to do the review. MR. LAPPER-Not coordinated. MR. BROWN-It won’t be coordinated. You’re going to do uncoordinated individual reviews. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll say no on that one. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. GARRAND-No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say no. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” No. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say no. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I suppose you could be adding on at some point in the future, but that’s not going to be a negative, because that’s what we’ve created the zone for down there. So I would say no on that one. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Okay. Then I guess that we’ll give it a Neg Dec on that. MR. BROWN-I guess what you want to do is make a motion that upon review of the Short Form you find that there’s no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION THAT UPON REVIEW OF THE SHORT FORM, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS, SO WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A NEG DEC, THAT WE HAVE NOTHING THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT AS FAR AS THIS FORM GOES, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll make a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 603 Queensbury Avenue. The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing office building and construction of a three story, 113,000 square foot office building with associated site work. Specifically, the applicant is requesting relief for 9.75 feet of total relief from the 50 foot maximum height requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the Light Industrial zone. I think we should recognize, too, that over most of the site we’re looking at 6.75 feet of relief. It’s only from that low point of the loading dock that it’s going to be 9.75. I think the Board recognizes that the benefit to the applicant by allowing them to construct their world headquarters on site here is going to be a positive for just about everybody, for both them and the community. Feasible alternatives would mean not putting up that screening on top of the building, which was something we considered, but we did not consider it to be an abhorrent view from down on site there or traveling past. The relief, is the relief substantial? It’s 9.75 feet of relief, but we could consider that to be minimal relief from the variance. Effects on the community, it’s not anticipated that there will be any effects on the community, and as far as the difficulty being self-created, I mean, it is an architectural detail that’s being added up on top of the building. It’s not anticipated that anybody’s going to be offended by that. The proposed structure’s going to have a total height of, it’s now going to be 59.75 feet, per the elevation drawings, and it should be noted that the 9.75 feet of the variance is for the roof screen only up on top, and that’s to hide the mechanicals and the access to the roof up on top of the building. So I’d move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. BODKIN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We do have a couple of sets of minutes of meetings to approve, and I’ll go through those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE April 23, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/08) NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. That’s it. Any other business? Anybody else wishing to speak on any other matters? AUDIENCE MEMBER-The Dunham’s Bay thing, what was the deal with that? MR. UNDERWOOD-It was pulled on behalf of, their attorney pulled it this afternoon by fax. So we have no idea why, when or where, if it’s going to reappear again. I would assume they’re probably going to go back to the Town Board, would be my guess. AUDIENCE MEMBER-They’ll send out letters again? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. You’ll be notified if you’re within distance of it of any changes or, if it reappears again, but it doesn’t appear it’s going to come back this summer. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. I guess that’s it for tonight folks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 15